Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunster (law firm)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gunster (law firm)

Gunster (law firm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant piece of advertising "Florida's preeminent commercial law practice" with no refs. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 19:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and
  WP:TNT - this was a better article before the spammer hit it (@The Vintage Feminist:). However even then there weren't enough references to establish notability (simple name-drop "references" for the most part) and it had been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user - there are no signifiant edits by editors who are not the creator (blocked sock) or the account that turned it into an advertisement. There might be notability here, but that ain't it Chief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete This is not a Wikipedia article, it's a blatant blurb.TH1980 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like the promotional tone was made under a possible
  COI user GWPB. In addition, the user deleted a lot of references and added information that were unreferenced. I have reverted it to the last clean version. INeedSupport ^:3 21:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Just fixed the citation (which removed any promotional material in the process). It may be outdated, but the article meets
  WP:GNG as it has significant coverage. A book that talks about it is far away from the location of the law firm, which is good for GNG. INeedSupport ^:3 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep notable, major, large law firm. Here's a search in the NYTimes [1], Florida papers naturally have more. Firm's notable partners include U.S. Senator George LeMieux. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing editor, at the very least I think this needs to run another week to give editors a chance to look a little harder for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as improved by INeedSupport. The firm seems to be reasonably well reported. As a former Florida lawyer, I recognized the name right away (which can't be said of most law firms in the state). bd2412 T 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEY In addition to edits by INeedSupport, I quickly sourced a skeleton, but solid, history of the firm's serial mergers and growth. there's more than enought to KEEP. Article is longer PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Thanks for the relisting. Living in the UK the concept of a notable law firm is something of a novelty to me, I don't know of any here and no idea of why I would/should. That said, the legal careers advice book the firm is listed in seems to be a case of "research x number of firms and print the research in a directory":

• Dalton, Brian (2007). "Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A.". Vault Guide to the Top Southeastern Law Firms (2007 Edition).
  ISBN 978-1-58131-414-4
  .

• Delete press release, and minimal notability =a good cause for deletion. The infobox woulddo for the company's web page or advertisement--a list of the practice areas, which just happen to include every signifcant one except non-white-collar-criminal. Key people, lists all the board of directors.--and a number of the attorneys are listed by name in the first paragraph. Having a senator among its attorneys doesnt make the firm notable, much less having a former judge. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing added to page with
  WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not aware that has ever been an informal criterion. If it were , one could justify articles on people with very little intrinsic importance and no reliable sources. Something being mentioned in WP does not make it suitable for an article, because article content is not subject to any notability requirement. The place for such relationships to be included is Wikidata, which should have an entry for every law firm mentioned in WP.

E.M.Gregory, a question: I made some comments about the nature of the contents here do you regard the listings of fields of practice and of multiple non-notable attorneys as appropriate? If you do not, wouldn't it have been a stronger article if you had removed it, so my claim of deletion for promotionalism would not apply? (If you do think it appropriate, we're going to need a RfC on this, becauseI have been routinely removing such content from all organization articles) DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Done. Honestly, I hadn't even noticed the info in the Info Box. My thought on notability is that the major regional and national law firms are an extremely significant part of the power structure of American society, and, therefore, we ought to provide at least basic information about them. The Florida press spilled a lot of ink over the activities of partner George LeMieux, I did not attempt to untangle it, but the interplay of power, money and politics in re: this firm is there for anyone with the time and access to a good news archive and LexisNexis to read it and add to the page, or in need of a dissertation topic in Political Science. Oh, and, no, links are not a criterion. For me, however, they are an indicator that a subject at AfD merits a close look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obvious advertising. Not surprisingly, this articletisement was written by a member of a large sock ring. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But was cleaned up, expanded and sourced during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, the current version still fails
  WP:BOGOF is how you want to invest your effort, who am I to say no? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete generosity and kindness are my great failing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.